June 20, 2017

"In the politics of scandal, at least since Watergate, you don’t have to engage in persuasion or even talk about issues."

"Political victories are won when you destroy your political opponents by catching them in some wrongdoing. You get seduced by the delightful possibility that your opponent will be eliminated. Politics is simply about moral superiority and personal destruction."

Writes David Brooks in "Let’s Not Get Carried Away," which is about "the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington." Brooks ends by quoting a Trump tweet...
“They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story.”
... and adding:
Unless there is some new revelation, that may turn out to be pretty accurate commentary.
Why say "may turn out to be" and not "is"? "Unless there is some new revelation" already locates you in the present, looking at the sum total of the evidence we have now. Trump said it amounted to "zero." Either you agree with that or you don't. I understand weasel words, but why double up on weasel words? What are you afraid of?

184 comments:

Sebastian said...

"why double up on weasel words?" Why not, when you are an anti-Trump pussy?

"What are you afraid of?" Losing your prog girlfriend, not being invited to NYC parties and PBS shows, being considered deplorable.

But give him credit: he knows Trump is right.

Next question: how will the Brookses of the world deal with Mueller's fabricated-out-of-nothing lefty assault on the admin? I predict a mealy-mouthed handwringing defense of "the system" and "the rule of law" against Scalise-like "self-inflicted" injuries.

Jeff Weimer said...

He's afraid of being accused of looking too pro-Trump.

sparrow said...

Brooks has always been a compromised domesticated "conservative" safe enough for the NYTs and PBS. It would be out of character for him to be forthright.

John Tuffnell said...

What are you afraid of?

A pant leg. A pant leg that may not be perfectly creased.

Nonapod said...

Most of the Left will soon face that moment when the reality of the situation hits you in the face. You can lie to yourself, you can delude yourself, you can live in a bubble that reinforces you own biases for a long time, but not forever.

traditionalguy said...

Poor Brooks. He is afraid of the FBI charging him with disclosing classified truth. The Dems have made that into a National Security Crime unless committed by a Clinton underling.

iowan2 said...

The left has been trying to walk all of this back, but not all have gotten the memo.

To me the biggest investigation should be about the unmasking of private citizens by politicians. Last I heard, the IC is refusing to release the documents about who requested the unmasking. There's the obstruction of justice. Republicans are as complicit as the left, proving the Republicans are also scared about what has been going on for a very long time.

n.n said...

It's not pretty. It is accurate.

A fear that overlapping and convergent interests will not sustain the ball of yarns spun over a multi-decadel period.

MayBee said...

We've gone from The Crime! to The Cover-Up is Worsse Than the Crime! to The Accusation is As Bad As a Crime!

Jack Wayne said...

Iowan2, Juducial Watch did a FOIA request for the documents. It was denied recently because the documents have been shipped to the Obama library. And, by law, once they're there, there's a five year moratorium on their release. Nifty, huh?

Bay Area Guy said...

Brooks is weak. The only courageous man on the Left on this issue is Dershowitz.

One angle the Left is holding onto: that Michael Flynn has turned against Trump, and is cooperating with the Feds (that's why he has been so silent!).

Flynn was fired 2.13.17. So, although he may have been the subject of communications between Trump and Comey, he was likely not the actor.

Heck, we don't even know if there is a criminal investigation against Flynn. All we know is that his telephone call was bugged, the contents leaked, and that he was fired for political reasons (i.e,, making Pence look bad).

It's a total nothing-burger, but the Left will argue that today's results in Georgia (if Ossof wins) validates the "severity" of the charges.

Blah, blah, blah, I say.

tcrosse said...

We've gone from The Crime! to The Cover-Up is Worsse Than the Crime! to The Accusation is As Bad As a Crime!

And that Lawyering Up is a proof of guilt.

Mike said...

What are you afraid of?

Clarity. He's afraid of plainly stating the truth.

Henry said...

As I posted on a friend's impeachathon Facebook thread, eventually the left is going to run out of hail marys.

robother said...

The complete absence of evidence of Russian collusion IS smoking gun evidence of a cover-up! The dog that didn't bark! The Special Prosecutor always gets his man.

Known Unknown said...

Politics is a game that never ends that no one ever wins.

Sam L. said...

This is an example of why I distrust Brooks and the NYT.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Its like Oliver Stone’s theory…..if there is zero evidence of a crime/conspiracy, then that is proof of the crime because the coverup is so thorough.

Ficta said...

There’s just something worrisome every time we find ourselves replacing politics of democracy with the politics of scandal. In democracy, the issues count, and you try to win by persuasion. You recognize that your opponents are legitimate, that they will always be there and that some form of compromise is inevitable.

The members of the Democratic Party no longer believe this. They're obviously right so their opponents must be evil or stupid. Compromise with Hitler would be immoral.

Rene Saunce said...

the left refuse to let go of their delusional false narrative. A narrative where poor Hillary really won all because Trump and Poot hacked the actual vote totals. Where Trump and Poot manufactured all of poor Hillary's bad self-serving choices.

TWW said...

"Unless there is some new revelation, that may turn out to be pretty accurate commentary."

A weasel authors a weasel's sentence.

Bay Area Guy said...

If Hillary had won, we'd be hearing nothing of sinister Russian interference with our elections, and she'd be giving them another "reset" button.

gadfly said...

Ask the Trumpsters reading this commentary and they will surely say: "Trump doesn't lie."

But he does lie - all the time and incessantly because "truth is in the eyes of the beholder" - whose name, don'tcha know, is Donald Trump.

None of this Russian folderol comes about without the careless mouth and the never-ending tweets as the president feeds the media pigs. This is not Watergate with a serious-minded president - this is Trump publicity and Trump name-mentions driving the his apparently planned political proxy wars.

DKWalser said...

In 1985 Milton Friedman was interviewed by a panel that included a very young David Brooks. Brooks didn't come off that well in the comparison. (Neither would have most of us.) What is telling from the interview -- in addition to the wisdom of Friedman -- is the insight it gives to Brooks' way of thinking. That is, he doesn't appear to think for himself as much as parrot what he's heard others say. As a result, there's no foundation for him to fall back to when Friedman brushes away the superstructure of his argument. I believe Brooks still suffers from this failing. As a consequence, he values the approval of his peers more than the truth of his convictions -- because he doesn't know the truth for himself and relies on the views of others for his opinions. Someone who knows the truth isn't as concerned with appearances as is Brooks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3-_r_t7AZU

Michael Gazonymous said...

weasels gonna weaselword

MaxedOutMama said...

He's afraid of being attacked on the street by a shrieking gang of Hillary maenads? Not an improbable outcome of this article, IMO. He's going to get pressure from this - not surprising that he would be careful of his phrasing. In his circle, this was an act of courage.

Yancey Ward said...

Brooks writes for the NYTimes- he literally can't state "Trump is correct"- he can't even write "Trump is almost surely correct." All he can get away with is to write "Trump might possibly be correct, maybe, but maybe not".

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Trump is using weasel words too. When you go around saying there is zero proof you did something, that's not quite the same as saying you didn't do it. And who are "they" and what did "they" make up?

Freeman Hunt said...

He addresses something that really is ruining politics and is not limited to the left or right.

James K said...

Why the weasel words? He knows who is providing his platform. Look what happened to Bret Stephens for even suggesting that maybe the AGW orthodoxy isn't 100% correct. Bret is evidently doing penance with his latest ridiculous column on immigration. Brooks has to create plausible deniability for his masters.

Ficta said...

"None of this Russian folderol comes about without the careless mouth and the never-ending tweets as the president feeds the media pigs."

I disagree: President Rubio would be under investigation for Russian corruption too. This is manufactured nonsense from the Clinton Crime Family that would have been deployed against anyone who beat them. The Democrats called Bush Hitler. Look what they tried to do to mild mannered Scott Walker in Wisconsin. That's Brooks' point, with which I agree: overturning the election, not convincing voters, is all that matters, because the opposition are not fellow citizens, they're monsters.

Hyphenated American said...

"When you go around saying there is zero proof you did something, that's not quite the same as saying you didn't do it."

Problem is - it's up to liberals to show any evidence of collusion. If there is none, they should stop the witch hunt. Agreed?

EDH said...

I understand weasel words, but why double up on weasel words? What are you afraid of?

"BROOKS WAS HERE."

MikeR said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448755/trump-investigation-shows-how-easy-it-feds-create-crimes
I agree with this 100%. Manufactured crimes.

Lem said...

There is something to be said about not having to make the tough calls, which is also advantageous to running for reelection. The awful democrats with their phony investigation blocked my agenda... there is still much to be done. Yadiyadiyada. Which could be the reason for Trumps strange tweet seeming to admit he was under investigation, to the delight of many of his press detractors.

StephenFearby said...

AA wrote: "I understand weasel words, but why double up on weasel words?"


Top definition of "Double Up" on Urban Dictionary:

"If you buy 40 dollars worth of crack for 20 dollars and sell it for 40 dollars you just pulled a double up.

Ay main let me get a double up up off you."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=double%20up

The definition for "Double Down" on Urban Dictionary:

"...to engage in risky behavior, especially when one is already in a dangerous situation.

This figurative usage as appearing in the Oxford English Dictionary is a meaningful explanation of “double down” other than the ubiquitous “to double the wager in exchange for only one additional card in Blackjack gambit” in every online dictionary.

Don’t try to double down the exposures of your retirement money in aggressive investments

It is the time to double down on the commitment of solar energy, rather than to scale back."

I can see how double up might work in some strained contex, but I think double down is a bigley concept that works much more betterer.


In other news, the Trump White House can't spell:

WHAT TYPOS CAN TELL US ABOUT THIS WHITE HOUSE

https://psmag.com/news/what-typos-can-tell-us-about-this-white-house

OGWiseman said...

The problem with that tweet is it's in the past tense. The investigation (the ACTUAL investigation, not the media hysteria) is ongoing, and being conducted by FBI professionals. There's no finding yet.

I agree the media should stop being so hysterical, but that's the 24-news cycle. It's been their fundamental flaw for a long time, and Trump has exploited that flaw to his tremendous advantage since he started campaigning. Now it's turning on him. That's how these sorts of things often go.

Mike Sylwester said...

When Robert Mueller has lost David Brooks ....

Dave from Minnesota said...

If a policeman illegal searches my house and finds something, I cannot be charged because that is illegal search.

If a politician gets investigated over madeup issue, and he violated some technicality during the investigation/trial, should he be charged with that? I'm thinking Scooter Libby. A fake accusation was made against him. For whatever reason he told a lie to investigators, and then was charged with that.
Yes, I know lying is more than a technicality, but the point is he shouldn't have been charged with anything in the first place.

readering said...

I believe he's using sequence of tenses.

David Baker said...

Come on, people, quit making excuses for such an incredible punk. It's hard to imagine a more compromised writer than David Brooks.

David Baker said...

Meanwhile, the press is awaiting Sean Spicer, and a final feeding-frenzy.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Why double-up on weasel words?

He lost his pack while crossing a stream, and now he's in survival mode, and going back to what he thinks are the very basics needed to survive.

dreams said...

We know what David Brooks is afraid of, he doesn't want to lose his liberal friends or make them too mad.

Kevin said...

As a consequence, he values the approval of his peers more than the truth of his convictions -- because he doesn't know the truth for himself and relies on the views of others for his opinions.

Sounds like the kind of sparring partner the NYT would choose for itself.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Too late, David Brooks. Getting Trump was more important that how (or even why, in a way). Trump must be got. The easiest way to get someone is to open a federal investigation--get the FBI on 'em. The underlying cause of the investigation is of secondary importance (at best).
As Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby--if they want to get you they'll get you, given a chance.
The NeverTrump people were happy to give the Dems a chance. The fact that in doing so they helped damage norms and set terrible precedents...well, gotta break a few eggs to make that tasty "get Trump" omelette.
The NeverTrump right--the ones who will tell you they're just taking a principled stand, that Trump and his admin aren't their problems--is eager to tell us how they're much loftier than we are, about how their stands are clean, about how they're above mere politics, and about how terrible it is that we're too mired in tribalism to understand their pure vision. Hey, good for them. Tribalism is a part of politics, though, and being unwilling to defend people in what's supposed to be your tribe...well, that's a recipe for losing. I get why they don't want to claim Trump as a tribe member--he's not a good fit. By being unwilling to defend the Trump Admin/this Republican administration, though, they helped make the Left's job much, much easier.
"Just calling 'em like I see 'em" is great when you're an actual umpire, but disastrous when you're supposed to be ON the team (doubly so when the other team cheats).

Martha said...

Brooks essentially said all this on Sunday's Meet the Press. One other panelist agreed with him. My husband and I were pleasantly shocked.

cf said...

I don't think he is afraid of a What, I feel pretty confidant it may be a Who.

Maybe it is a few Whos, maybe a battalion of them.

I have been wondering -- hoping it might be true -- that a good few of those who deliver our News Theater are actually seeing the contemptuous nature of the powers at work, and yet feel compelled to keep to the Script because it is suicide to do otherwise.

Who is it (or who are they) that is most feared?

Unknown said...

He and all of the other "conservatives" have to pay obeisance to the democrats.

Lem said...

I was trolling Jaketapper to report the latest on the collusion investigation. Tweeting him things like- stop distracting people with this terrorism stuff. People aren't interested in that stuff. Get back to reporting about the Trump Russia collusion. I did it so often my phone started predicting Russia after I type Trump.

Then I realized I was doing it in the hopes of one day seeing a video of Jaketapper embarrassingly admitting his mistake. Now I doubt that will ever happen. Is jaketapper capable of embarrassment?

n.n said...

And since Water Closet, the arguments and issues are created from whole cloth.

Earnest Prole said...

All the comments focus on the hapless messenger at the expense of message. Democrats have all but abandoned the toil and trouble of normal politics -- economic growth, jobs, public safety, national security -- in favor of "moral superiority and personal destruction." It's a surefire way to be a minority party for years to come. Brooks is making the case to Democrats, not Republicans, and that's why he doesn't sound like Newt Gingrich.

Otto said...

Go get him Ann! Do you really think there are any men at the NYTs?

Gahrie said...

What are you afraid of?

He's afraid he might not get invited to all the best cocktail parties anymore.

Quaestor said...

Brooks may not be afraid of anything. After 20 years of writing according to the NYT stylebook, weasel words are as reflexive as a knee jerk. Besides, he has his position to consider. As the editorial board's tame conservative Books cannot afford to look too unbiased.

Virtually Unknown said...

Meanwhile Trump is reversing scarce energy policies of the Democrats, like opposition to fracking and Keystone and putting an extra twenty or two into the pockets of millions of working people every week.

Ralph L said...

In reluctant defense of Brooks, the only proof we have that they're aiming for obstruction is a leak. But that probably isn't what Brooks meant by "may."

Virtually Unknown said...

BTW, many of those twenties used to go into Putin's pocket.

wendybar said...

Bay Area Guy said...
If Hillary had won, we'd be hearing nothing of sinister Russian interference with our elections, and she'd be giving them another "reset" button.

6/20/17, 11:35 AM



And selling them more Uranium, all the while, the Clinton Foundation got richer and richer.... I am Thankful every day that she lost. And I am laughing at the temper tantrums on the left

Big Mike said...

Shorter answer: Brooks uses weasel words because he's a weasel.

Quaestor said...

Speaking of scandals, a group of forensic psychology students and instructors at George Washington University called The Profiling Project are investigating the Seth Rich murder. They have published their preliminary findings here. Some of the grammar is atrocious (Hey, it's millennial scholarship, whaddya expect? Thomas Carlyle redux?) but their findings are interesting, to say the least. Will Robert Mueller be attracted more by the tangible than the ephemeral?

DKWalser said...

...I'm thinking Scooter Libby. A fake accusation was made against him. For whatever reason he told a lie to investigators, and then was charged with that. ...

What happened to Libby was a travesty of justice -- and not just because he was convicted of a process crime. Libby was interviewed several times over a number of days. He gave conflicting answers in some of the interviews that to some of the questions. Some of his answers were factually incorrect. Yet, none of this, taken as a whole, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby had intended to mislead investigators. A lapse of memory was always a more likely explanation for his misstatements. He was quizzed about a series of things that happened more than a year before during an incredibly busy time in his life. He prefaced many of his answers with "I don't remember clearly" or some such. Pressed for details, he tried to give his best recollection. At times his recollection was inaccurate.

I don't believe anyone every had a good faith belief that Libby was guilty, but they did believe they could convict Libby and wanted to use his legal jeopardy to "flip" Libby to give evidence against the VP or the President.

Craig said...

This post looks like good evidence of Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome.

Brooks quotes Trump making _three_ assertions. Althouse cherry-picks one of those to make her critique--a critique that doesn't work unless you chop up Brooks's quoting of Trump. I think Althouse is getting away with this because of sloppy use of pronouns. The "that" in Althouse's antepenultimate fourth sentence _seems_ to refer to the fact that Trump claimed there was zero evidence. But the "that" in Brooks's writing refers to the commentary, the conjunction of all three assertions.

Moreover, why does Althouse spend so much intellectual energy trying to find intelligence in Trump but here denies an obvious and reasonable candidate interpretation to someone other than Trump? TDSDS is my diagnosis. Give Althouse that the key bit is the zero-evidence bit (which, again, is an apparent misread on her part). Given that there is an ongoing investigation, why would I want to conclude on only the basis of the proof that has been made publicly available so far that that there is no proof that has not yet been made publicly available? It is not hard for me to imagine that there is one good lawyer on the team who might be the sort who'd hold on to a bit of proof until it was proper to bring it forward. If so, then the reasonable thing to say here is what Brooks said, and not because you're afraid of something. So why ascribe fear here? TDSDS.

Unknown said...

TRUMP'S BREAKING NEWS: "While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!"

Duh, China just rolled Trump over and left him to fend for himself.

Well, that is another "so much winning" for Trump and now war with North Korea coming pretty soon which of course will be even more winning by Trump.

tcrosse said...

Duh, China just rolled Trump over and left him to fend for himself.

What Would Hillary Do ?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Hey, Unknown, what about that Muslim girl who was raped and murdered by an illegal? You stupidly blamed it on "Trumpskis" yesterday. It would behoove you to learn all the facts before completely beclowning yourself and showing off your idiocy to the world, but if you did that you wouldn't be a leftist troll.

Do you ever tire of being wrong and moronic?

Martin said...

Isn't it contrary to legal or prosecutorial ethics to use the investigation to create a crime, as Fitzgerald did to Libby and as some of us (i.e., I) fear Mueller may intend to do to Trump or some of his close associates?

If there is no good reason to believe there is/was an underlying crime, shut it down.

This has been under investigation since last July. Everything that can possibly put Trump or any of his people in an unflattering light is leaked and played as if it's the Second Coming. It's hard to believe there is even semi-credible evidence of a crime or anything remotely close to a political faux pas, as it would have been leaked.

If there is such a thing it should be investigated. If not, this circus needs to end.

And then I want to see someone who has been maligned by the NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc., file suit for defamation. It's time to revisit Sullivan v. NYT, which it seems to me has produced not the free and open press that the Supreme Court wanted, but an irresponsible press, populated by liars, fanatics and lunatics, accountable to no one, totally irresponsible and abusive of ten truth and anyone they don't like on any given day.

Realistically, Trump as President shouldn't do it, but Flynn could, or Puzder, or any number of other people who have been viciously maligned because of some association with Trump, but are not now in government positions.

It is important that this happen. We need a strong press, and right now we don't have one, and what we do have is careening toward irrelevance as the lies pile up and it becomes more obvious to everybody that what we have is a partisan claque that does not merit serious attention. People who like what it says gravitate toward it, and people who don't, don't. But hardly anyone trusts or believes it, it's just entertainment. Some people are entertained by people who trash Trump, some are entertained by people who defend him. The former can watch Colbert or a huge range of other entertainers. The latter have much more limited options, but there are some. But no one outside the DC bubble seriously thinks the WaPo or NYT playing up the latest leak is really "news" as we understood the word only a few years ago.

As a business model, outfits like the NYT, WaPo, MSCNBC are doing well catering to the anti-Trump sentiment. But it is entertainment, not news; they have found a way to buold share as entertainers. NOT as news media.

The UK press is subject to being sued if it defames someone, and is FAR superior to the US media. No one can say that it is not robust and presents strong opinions, in their proper place. No one could confuse the Guardian, the Telegraph, and the (London) Times. Clearly, protecting subjects of stories by giving them the right to sue based on reasonable grounds does not inhibit a strong press, it arguably improves it.

Sullivan needs to be reconsidered, any objective observer on the last few years has to nat elast conced it's time for revisiting it. imho it does NOT now serve the public interest, if it ever did.

exiledonmainstreet said...

So, Unknown, how does that girl rate on the Leftist victim hierarchy? Does a Muslim female outrank an illegal Hispanic male criminal?

Should there be a waiting period before we are allowed to buy baseball bats?

Jupiter said...

'Democrats have all but abandoned the toil and trouble of normal politics -- economic growth, jobs, public safety, national security -- in favor of "moral superiority and personal destruction."'

The Democrats have framed themselves as a coalition of outsiders and victims. Which means that they are increasingly committed to the idea that "normal politics" is racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, cultural appropriation, etc. That is, they are running against America. "I say God-Damn Amerika!", to quote a very wealthy former associate of the last Democrat President.

Achilles said...

7.5 more years. You have earned it lefties. 7.5 years while he erases the obama legacy.

cf said...

Achilles for the win.

veni vidi vici said...

David "Bobo" Brooks is afraid someone will find his testicles before he does. It's been his motivating fear for a few decades now.

exiledonmainstreet said...

In the meantime:

"There has been an explosion at Brussels central station, where military have shot a suspect who was allegedly wearing an explosive belt."

I'm sure it was a Trumpski, right, Unknown?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

DKWalser said...What happened to Libby was a travesty of justice -- and not just because he was convicted of a process crime. Libby was interviewed several times over a number of days. He gave conflicting answers in some of the interviews that to some of the questions. Some of his answers were factually incorrect. Yet, none of this, taken as a whole, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby had intended to mislead investigators. A lapse of memory was always a more likely explanation for his misstatements.

Yes, and even worse than that is that the incorrect information he gave did not, in any way, hinder the actual investigation. He probably wasn't trying to lie and the FBI knew the truth before they asked the question, so his answer did not affect the investigation or their conclusions in any way. He didn't "obstruct" anything.

Ken "PopeHat" White can be an ass on Twitter but makes solid points on this topic: NRO: Trump Investigation Shows How Easy It Is For Feds To Create Crimes

Matthew Sablan said...

Trump is just an easier target; remember, Romney was the man who gave a woman cancer and forced a hair cut on some kid that no one remembered. They found a way to turn Romney -- a man who literally closed his businesses to search for a missing girl -- into an evil, businessman overlord.

Mike Sylwester said...

I imagine that Robert Mueller and his team of Trump-hating lawyers will focus on our President Trump's previous ownership of the Miss Universe pageant.

Mueller's team will systematically study all of Trump's associates who have some links with Russia and then will try to pin crimes onto any such associates. It stands to reason that Trump's Miss Universe associates will be an optimum target-rich environment for Russia-linked associates.

Trump associates with beauty-pagent ties might also provide salacious gossip about peeping-Tom and groping incidents that Mueller's team will be able to leak immediately to Trump-hating journalists in order to keep stirring the pot for CNN, et al.

There seems to be some evidence that Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort in his pre-Trump years smuggled corruption money for the endangered leadership of the Ukrainian government -- which was fairly elected and was pro-Russian -- and which was being undermined by the Obama Administration.

I think it's likely that Manafort smuggled some money out of Ukraine by means of the Miss Universe organization.

Mueller's logic will be:

1) Manafort smuggled money out of Ukraine for Ukraine's corrupt but fairly-elected leaders.

2) Ukraine's corrupt but fairly-elected leaders were pro-Russian

3) Manafort smuggled some of the money through the Miss Universe organization in Ukraine and Russia

4) Trump owned the Miss Universe organization.

5) It seems that some Russia hackers might have tried to hack into some computers during the US election campaign.

6) Therefore, Trump used Manafort and his beauty-pagent money-smuggling methods to pay Putin to meddle in the US election.

Mueller's team will not prove step #6, but his team will catch some Trump associates lying about business deals and will convict and imprison those Trump associates for lying. Those convictions will prove that Mueller's investigation was valid and worthwhile -- just like the conviction of Scooter Libby did for the previous Special Counsel.

A big goal for Mueller's team will be to get ahold of all Trump's tax returns and make them public.

Unknown said...

@exiledonmainstreet

Belgians didn't vote for Trump (as they are not US citizens) and so they are not Trumpski's. Jeez!

A Trumpski murdered an Indian working legally in the US and injured another Indian and a White US citizen a few weeks ago somewhere in flyover country. Btw, Indians are pre-dominantly Hindus which along with Budhism are two of the most peaceful religons in the World.

Two (or was it three) White US citizens were murdered by a Trumpski in Oregon who went to the aid of young girls of whom one or two were Muslim.

And, on and on. There are literally hundreds of incidents since Trump appeared on the scene. Whether you're Black, Brown, Yellow ... Trump has given Trumpski's carte-blanche to hate.

Mike Sylwester said...

Remember that at the beginning of January our top Intelligence officials gave our President Trump a briefing that included in the briefing attachments some information about the Russian dossier about Russian prostitutes urinating on Trump in a Russian hotel.

Then immediately after Trump heard that briefing, the information about the dossier was leaked to Trump-hating journalists, who used the occasion to inform the public about the dossier.

Who was the leaker?

Now in hindsight, we all can say that the main suspect should be "Crazy Comey the Leaker" - who is also the BFF of Robert "The Whitewasher" Mueller.

Comey should be the main suspect not only because he is a habitual and self-confessed leaker, but also because Comey's FBI was paying that English guy Steele to provide more such dossiers to the FBI.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"Belgians didn't vote for Trump (as they are not US citizens) and so they are not Trumpski's. Jeez!"

But, but, I thought Trumpskis were responsible for all the evil in the world!

"Two (or was it three) White US citizens were murdered by a Trumpski in Oregon who went to the aid of young girls of whom one or two were Muslim."

Nope. He was a Bernie fan. One of yours.

Most of the rest are hoaxes. Because your side is filled with braindead liars, like you.

exiledonmainstreet said...

So, Unknown Bonehead, should we implement background checks for baseball bat purchases? Maybe we should only be allowed to buy whiffle bats.

ICE placed a federal detainer on the suspect, who was here just seeking a better life and wanting to do the work Americans won't do. Well, until he smashed in a girl's skull in with a bat, that is.

And goodness, I wonder what the motivation of the guy with the bomb in Brussels train station is? Tis a mystery....

Bad Lieutenant said...

Why are people bothering with this Unknown bonehead? He can't even grammar.

Trump has given Trumpski's carte-blanche

Trumpskis, you ass, is the plural of Trumpski

The plural of Trumpski's is Trumpskis'

Get it straight dorkwad!

William Chadwick said...

I like Glenn Reynolds comment on the ongoing investigation/silent coup (take your pick): it's a quote from Beria, "Show me the man, and I'll find the crime."

gadfly said...

97 - 2!!! The war has begun between the legislative and executive branches. The Senate voted virtually unanimously to limit the President's power with regard to Russian sanctions.

1. The bill locks in existing US sanctions against Russia and gives Congress a check on the president’s ability to lift sanctions.

2. The bill significantly expands US sanctions on Russia’s energy sector. If implemented proactively, it would cut off Russia’s hopes for developing its next-generation oil resources. However, the bill does allow the White House to opt not to impose the sanctions if “the president determines that it is not in the national interest of the United States to do so.”

3. The strongest sanctions in the bill concern transactions with Russia’s intelligence and defense sectors. These measures are the bill’s most important counterpunch against Russia’s interference in the 2016 US election.

4. The bill includes an optional tool that could help the US government impede Nord Stream II [Nord Stream is an offshore natural gas pipeline from Vyborg in the Russian Federation to Greifswald in Germany] —and enhance European energy security—if the White House decides to use it.

5. The strongest provision in the bill—which restricts transactions with Russia’s intelligence and defense sectors—includes a waiver that mandates Congressional notification.

James K said...

Juducial Watch did a FOIA request for the documents. It was denied recently because the documents have been shipped to the Obama library. And, by law, once they're there, there's a five year moratorium on their release.

This seems worthy of an AA post, lots of legal issues to non-lawyers like me. How can records be moved off limits in the middle of an investigation? This seems like the most outrageous of all the outrages committed by the Deep State.

Inga said...

"97 - 2!!! The war has begun between the legislative and executive branches. The Senate voted virtually unanimously to limit the President's power with regard to Russian sanctions."

And the war between the Judicial and the Executive is ongoing. This is what happens when you vote in a man who is wholly incompetant and corrupt.

Bob Ellison said...

Are you trying to say "97:2"?

I don't get the reference otherwise, and I hate to go here, but crap, I know a lot about this stuff.

Bob Ellison said...

And since we're on the subject, are we discussing Montesquieu?

Bob Ellison said...

Oh, I found it. The US Senate voted 97-2 in favor of crapping on themselves. Such stand-up folks they are.

Molly said...

Fiddlesticks, Inga--

Where is the war between the Judiciary and the Executive?

Here's a hint: The Justice Dept, the FBI, Mueller, Comey, Sally Yates, et al.--they're all in the EXECUTIVE, not the Judiciary. (I assume that's what you mean when you say "Judicial.")

The Judiciary is the courts, remember?

FBI, DOJ, etc., all report to the President, remember? That's why Dershowitz has been stressing unitary executive concept.

Tommy Duncan said...

DKWalser said: "Someone who knows the truth isn't as concerned with appearances..."

DK, in real life your statement is true. Washington is not the real world. Appearance is what passes for reality there. Honest men that speak bluntly are ground to pieces by the political machines. Trump has survived thus far only by asymmetrical warfare. He's playing under different rules that he has defined. In pro football new offensive schemes provide an advantage only until the other teams figure out what you are doing. Washington will eventually figure out how to defeat Trump's twitter offense. At that point Trump will need a new offensive scheme to survive.

Inga said...

"The Judiciary is the courts, remember?"

Yes, but do you? What branch of the government do you think put a hold on Trump's Travel Ban? I didn't say a word about the FBI, Mueller, Comey, etc.

tcrosse said...

This is what happens when you vote in a man who is wholly incompetant and corrupt.
Would it have been much different if we had voted a woman who is wholly incompetent and corrupt ? What Would Hillary Do ?


Inga said...

@Gadfly,

It appears that the House and the President are trying to weaken the bill. Surprise, surprise. Dirty from the top down.

"The House has found a potential constitutional issue with the Senate's recently passed sanctions package targeting Russia and Iran, raising the prospect of a delay that could allow President Donald Trump's White House to secure its preferred changes to the bill.

A stuck Russia sanctions bill would help the White House, which planned to ask its House GOP allies for a different approach that would preserve Trump's power to work on more collaborative relations with Vladimir Putin's government. Democrats slammed the House GOP's constitutional concerns as an attempt to water down or stop legislation that would constrain Trump.

“House Republicans are considering using a procedural excuse to hide what they’re really doing: covering for a president who has been far too soft on Russia," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/20/senate-russia-sanctions-bill-delay-239772

Matthew Sablan said...

So... is there a constitutional issue? All I see is that the House found an issue, and Democrats are claiming that the issue doesn't matter.

Is there an issue? If there is... then it doesn't matter what the motives are. There's a problem with the bill.

If only we had an industry dedicated to reporting these things.

Inga said...

Funny, the Senate Republicans didn't find any Constitutional issue with the Bill. 97 to 2.

Achilles said...

The 80's called Inga. They want their foreign policy back.

Hehehe. Chortle chortle.

Oh obama Isn't president anymore... carry on then let's get that reset button out ...

Matthew Sablan said...

And sometimes it takes the Supreme Court to notice a problem.

Is there a problem?

Humperdink said...

"So, Unknown, how does that girl rate on the Leftist victim hierarchy? Does a Muslim female outrank an illegal Hispanic male criminal? "

Talk about a conundrum. The ACLU doesn't know which side to rally around.

Birkel said...

So the Senate acted appropriately, unlike when Obama assumed power to unilaterally apply sanctions? This President Trump just might be great, actually forcing co-equal branches to act.

Fantastic.

Inga said...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-accuse-house-leaders-of-slow-walking-russia-sanctions/article/2626548

""If Republican leadership says we can't act on the Senate bill, here's an easy solution: Let's introduce an identical House version and we can vote on that instead."

Trump's team doesn't want an identical bill to pass the House. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signaled his opposition to the bill as written during a round of hearings on the State Department budget. The senators who wrote the bill designed it so that Trump would have far less authority than most presidents over the decision to impose or lift the sanctions."

Birkel said...

Regular order is returning to the Senate? Where is the problem?

Why was the Senate so bad under Obama now becomes the question. Somebody ask George Soros check cashers John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Qwinn said...

"“House Republicans are considering using a procedural excuse to hide what they’re really doing: covering for a president who has been far too soft on Russia," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement.""

As opposed to Obama and Hillary, who were *just so tough* on Russia, with reset buttons, and regulating fracking, and pretty much ignoring the Ukraine... none of which Trump did. In fact, Trump has encouraged fracking, imposed sanctions and called out Russia repeatedly. But he's far softer on Russia than the Democrats have been for the last 80 years. Somehow. Don't ask for specifics.

Inga said...

"Somebody ask George Soros check cashers John McCain and Lindsey Graham."

"McCain was asked if he's seen the Senate version of AHCA. 'No,...but I'm sure the Russians have."

Just a joke I read folks, don't get mad.

bgates said...

wholly incompetant

If there's any word you should be careful about spelling correctly, it's incompetent.

97 to 2.

Gee, who were the two traitorous, soft-on-totalitarian Trump lackeys who voted against?

The only two votes against the Russia-Iran sanctions deal came from GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Oh.

bgates said...

I wonder how they got to Bernie. I mean, how do you subvert a famously independent-minded tribune of The People, especially one who already owns three houses?

Inga said...

At least I didn't spell it incompecovfefe.☕️

Birkel said...

Yes, Inga, I understand George Soros - NAZI collaborator and Democrat Party supporter - instructed McCain to say that.

Laugh. Laugh. Laugh.

David said...

"I understand weasel words, but why double up on weasel words? What are you afraid of?"

His readers. Various commentators and bloggers. His bosses. His ex wife. His new wife. (23 years younger and a potential health hazard plus, according to him, his intellectual and moral superior.) The People Who Matter. Rush Limbaugh. Maureen Down. The Russians. The Internet. Thomas Sowell. Sarah Palin. Michelle Malkin. Conservative women in general. Irrelevance.

Birkel said...

Four houses now, bgates.

Inga said...

Gee Birkel, why the heck do the people of Arizona and South Carolina keep voting for these two Soros' puppets?

Bruce Hayden said...

Blogger Birkel said...
"Regular order is returning to the Senate? Where is the problem?

Why was the Senate so bad under Obama now becomes the question. Somebody ask George Soros check cashers John McCain and Lindsey Graham."

Realistically, Obama would reject anything the the Republicans did with the budget, knowing that they wouldn't risk shutting down the govt, and, thus, would inevitably have to pass a continuing resolution, which had the Obama porkulus baked in, thus causing the trillion dollar deficits. Which is how a one time "Keynesian" stimulus became a permanent part of the budget for nine years now.

Birkel said...

Money. You have any more brain teasers?

Birkel said...

Bruce Hayden,

One correction. It was trillion dollar increases to the debt. The headline deficit numbers did not include the stimulus (sic) spending.

Thanks, Ted Kennedy and Richard Nixon.

Francisco D said...

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find Inga's comments increasingly and purposefully annoying and irrelevant. It is painful to look at her DNC-MSM talking points. The bullshit is really obvious.

I suspect that she has never had an original thought, based on critical thinking skills. That's common among Psych nurses. They could not manage the more challenging aspects of nursing school (AA or BA) so they go into a caretaker type of position.

Birkel said...

Name the Leftists that comment otherwise.

Tommy Duncan said...

Inga said: "It appears that the House and the President are trying to weaken the bill. Surprise, surprise. Dirty from the top down."

So is it your position that the House and the President should have no input on legislation? Only the Senate is needed in your Constitution?

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that the Administration and the Republicans have started the pushback against the Mueller investigation. He should be conflicted out of the obstruction investigation, based on standing DoJ policy on conflicts of interest. He is too close to Comey, and Comey admitted illegally leaking the memo about his conversations with Trump, in ordere to get the special prosecutor appointed. Mueller would, essentially be investigating the relationship between his good buddy Comey and President Trump. It doesn't help that a number of the attorneys hired by Mueller are Dem stalwarts, who contributed the max legally to Crooked Hillary's campaign. Both Trump and the RNC have pushed backing, calling out the blatant conflict of interest. And doing it over the heads of the MSM through Twitter and email blasts. Which means that if Mueller does find "obstruction", his investigation has already been discredited with much of the Trump base (which is what is politically important to Trump and the Republicans).

Making things even more interesting, there is a decent chance that Rosenstein will recuse himself, having both fired Comey and hired Mueller. If he does, oversight would fall to newly confirmed Asst AG Rachel Brand, who clerked for Justice Kennedy, and worked for GW Bush and AG Gonzales (whom Comey tried to cut out of control of the DoJ, when the previous AG was sick. She also helped prep CJ Roberts and J Alito for their confirmation hearing. Her confirmation took five months and was on party line votes (52-46, compared to Rosenstein who was confirmed 94-6). The leftist legal establishment has awoken to the threat that she holds for using Mueller to attack Trump, as evidenced by editorials warning her to play ball.

It all should be interesting.

Inga said...

It was Gadfly, a conservative commenter, who brought up the issue. I commented on it. If you don't like it, too damn bad.

And Francisco, you asshole, I wasn't only a psych nurse for the entire 35 years of my career. I did many different types of nursing. Your increasingly odd and personal comments about me makes me wonder if you don't need some psychotherapy yourself, or a med adjustment. You really have a creep factor to your comments.

Achilles said...


Blogger Francisco D said...
"I don't know about the rest of you, but I find Inga's comments increasingly and purposefully annoying and irrelevant. It is painful to look at her DNC-MSM talking points. The bullshit is really obvious. "

The Russian collusion fraud was a rearguard action by the DNC to keep the party together after they got caught screwing Bernie.

They had to distract from the fact that the only election that was rigged was the dnc primary.

Quaestor said...

Abby Someone wrote: I wasn't only a psych nurse for the entire 35 years of my career. I did many different types of nursing. Your increasingly odd and personal comments about me makes me wonder if you don't need some psychotherapy yourself, or a med adjustment.

Diagnostics via blog post... hmmm. Interesting professional ethics you have, Inga. Where did you get your training? At the Close Cover Before Striking School of Nursing and Watch Repair?

Inga said...

Quaestor, your buddy Francisco has diagnosed via internet far more extensively than I ever have, he claims to be a psychologist. I called him on his medical ethics a long time ago. Now go chastise him.

Inga said...

And I'm retired, so Questor you can kiss my ass.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Oh, I don't know, cat lady, you were more than happy to enlist Francisco D's services and have him certify me when you thought he was on your side, although I told you he was not.

Now that he's given you a taste of your own medicine, you bitch about "medical ethics."


Liberals: "But it's different when I do it!"

Quaestor said...

Francisco has diagnosed via internet far more extensively than I ever have, he claims to be a psychologist. I called him on his medical ethics a long time ago.

QED

Molly said...

Inga--

Sheesh, you call that a war?

Trump puts out travel ban

Some appeals courts block it

Trump admin prepares to appeal to High Court

That's the justice system, not a war.

Of course, the courts were idiots to block it, and the grounds they block it on are cretinous and extralegal, but ... courts have been wrong before (think Roger Taney)

And, to make assurance doubly sure: It's the Judiciary, for Pete's sake, not the Judicial.

Toodles

Inga said...

Hexiled,
Francisco is as nuts as you are. Any psychologist that comes online and focuses in on one person and continuously comments on that person's nursing profession in a such a disparaging way, has a mental health issue himself. I pity his patients and if I knew his name I would report him to the Board in a hot second. He better damn well hope I never find out his name.

Achilles said...

Go easy on Inga people. She's just realizing that she has 7.5 years of the trump presidency left. It is tough when bubbles burst.

Achilles said...

"I pity his patients and if I knew his name I would report him to the Board in a hot second. He better damn well hope I never find out his name."

This encapsulates what is wrong with these little tyrants.

I am 100% in support of gun control. Democrats shouldn't be allowed to have them.

Inga said...

Molly dearest,
When referring to branches of government one says the Judicial Branch, not the Judiciary Branch.... dummy. If you want to correct me, try being right first.

Inga said...

"I pity his patients and if I knew his name I would report him to the Board in a hot second. He better damn well hope I never find out his name."
----------------------
"This encapsulates what is wrong with these little tyrants. I am 100% in support of gun control. Democrats shouldn't be allowed to have them."
----------------------
Achilles I wouldn't shoot him, unlike you, I'm not an extremist nut like you are. I'd report him to the Board for unethical behavior.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Inga, I don't think you know the first thing about being professional.

I feel sorry for the poor souls who had to endure your "care."

Birkel said...

gadfly is conservative?
News to everybody.

Birkel said...

I hate petty tyrants. Reporting to a professional board because of disagreements online? Doxxing threats are unmitigated nastiness.

Everything the Leftists are, encapsulated in one nutty jerk.

Inga said...

Any psychologist worth his salt would recognize that Francisco's online behavior is out of bounds and this puts into question his fitness to practice. His behavior has been abberant and abusive and he has focused on me and made extremely insulting comments towards the nursing profession for quite sometime. Im not going to ignore it or tolerate it.

Fen said...

Exile, assumes facts not in evidence. You may have missed the episode where Nurse Inga couldn't answer what guage the needle was for lactated ringers. She did the usual 20 comments dodging instead simply answering the quedtion.

It's one of those bits of information that real nurses could answer in their sleep, day to day operations that are so ingrained, you forget they aren't common knowledge.

Every profession has tbem. For example, the number of hash stichings on a football is common knowledge to every quarterback in the NFL. But a poser wouldn't think to research that tidbit for their alias.

Birkel said...

Petty. Would-be. Tyrant.

Own it.

Fen said...

A chemist fuzzy about moles. A con law prof unclear on mens rea, a Navy Seal who can't define SMEAC. All suspect.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

Moles dig up the yard. Ha!

Chemistry is hard.

Birkel said...

Mole is used in some Mexican dishes.
Moles.

Inga said...


Fen, who has stated he is a hospital security guard, made a point of "teaching " me, a nurse of 35 years about needle gauges, loI. I would not give him the time of day. Now go do your rounds oh so wanna be health care provider bipolar, Fen. Go refill your Lithium script, you need it. Maybe you can convince some teenager to commit suicide liike the teen girl we diiscussed a few days ago, since you seemed to be so in favor of assisted suicide for depression.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Inga,You would try to ruin someone's livelihood because he insulted you on a blog?

Oh yeah, that's right. You already tried doing that to someone else here.

leftist are simply vile.

Fen said...

"Any psychologist worth his salt -

would know better than to diagnose over the internet.

Maybe it's time you trotted out Daughter #5 The Psychologist. So you can appropriate her expertise to support your ad hom.

I bet they are all just cats. Cats are great btw, I'm a dog person, but my cat converted me. She even let me teach her how to fetch, took one for the team.

Inga said...

Lithium Fen, that's your ticket to mental health.

clint said...

"A chemist fuzzy about moles"

I see what you did there. Fuzzy moles. Heh.

Fen said...

"See Fen, we can fetch too. We just don't see the point. You're just going to throw it again Jackass. Now scratch my belly so I can shred your arm with my claws"

Bad Lieutenant said...

I never like to agree with Ann about anything if it can be avoided, but it is an inescapable truth that this place is going to the dogs. The personal attacks on every hand are really sapping the joy out of this place. Not that I'm better than anyone else but there is such a thing as measure.

Birkel said...

I have tried to comply with Althouse's request.

Fen said...

Inga "...who stated he is a hospital security guard"

No. That was one of my part time jobs when I got out of the Marines and went back to college to get my masters. About 20 years ago. Maybe you were drunk that night.

Fen said...

Yah, I've tried too. I think throwing the worst out of the joint would solve the problem. I'm cool being sacrificed so long as Ritmo and Inga go with me.

Bad Lieutenant said...

In absence of La Emerita taking a hand, the best option open may be to attempt the silent treatment. Either ignore completely, or engage only on points where something substantial is at issue, or some other criterion. Maybe when people go on a tear, and are not responded to, they will quiet down. Dunno.

Fen said...

Aikman: "They're called cross-lacings not hash stiches, dumbass".

My bad, Troy. But thanks for skylining my point.

Fen said...

J. Bourne: "Maybe you meant spotlighting or underscoring. Skylining is something entirely different. Idiot"

Fine. Whatever.

Bad Lieutenant said...

I think it is an objectionable stance to take, on a blog like this, that one doesn't care what anyone else thinks, doesn't care to engage, but only to spew one's thoughts out at the audience like so much vomit.

That seems exceptionally disagreeable to me, and I wonder at the thinking behind it. Some people do it; some admit/boast of it, where others might deny it with more or less sincerity.

If you're not going to answer questions and respond to people, why are you here?

Fen said...

Maybe it's Inga's version of the Hecklers Veto. The conservatives are having a discussion over at Althouse. Let's go fuck that up. Viva La Resistence!

Birkel said...

Bad Lieutenant,
You have to make exceptions for jokes.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Bad Lt., Inga says she's just here to "express herself." Because otherwise we might never know what liberals think or believe. God knows, they're barely represented in the media. And they're normally so shy about sharing their thoughts and opinions.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Sure, Birkel, you can reward good posts with participation.

Fen, got it in one, I think. Chaff. Dezinformatsiya. Something like that.

Birkel said...

And TTRq says he is only here to disrupt the conversation, explicitly.

Craig said...

In absence of La Emerita taking a hand, the best option open may be to attempt the silent treatment. Either ignore completely, or engage only on points where something substantial is at issue, or some other criterion. Maybe when people go on a tear, and are not responded to, they will quiet down. Dunno.

If I remember right, that strategy (i.e., not responding, and not levying more personal attacks) is exactly what Althouse requested. Otherwise, the thread gets drowned out with insults like bonehead, moronic, braindead liars, dorkwad, bullshit, “never had an original thought”, ass, asshole, kiss my ass, nuts, “Go refill your Lithium script, you need it”, ...

Fen said...

But I'm also weary of the double standard. Lefties like Ritmo and Inga continually start food fights snd, not only does the bartender do nothing, she asks that we just sit here and take it.

It's a micro of what's currently going on outside. We get hit over the head with bicycle locks, and when we respond we get lectured about our tone and manners.

One set of rules that apply to everyone equally. Or no rules at all.

Also, can we discuss my bar tab? It's been a slow week at the office.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Thing is, as our President Trump says, it's just words. Them saying things doesn't make them so.

Fen said...

"If I remember right, that strategy is - "

It's a boneheaded strategy though.

1. Bullies may poke prod and slap others around because it's a minor distraction in the classroom that teacher can

2. Retaliation leads to brawls, the priniciple being summoned, calls to 911, parent teacher conferences, lots of paperwork.

3. So just take it up the ass, betas. You were asking for it anyway.

Fuck all that. If you don't respect your commentariat, why should they in turn respect you or your blog.

Craig said...

Fen,

I haven't read every comment on every thread, but in this thread, it looks to me like the move to insults came from the right, not from Inga. Inga made (by my quick count) 8 substantive comments (i.e., comments without personal insults against other commenters), and then the right-wingers started in with the insults. Only then did she fight back.

And it isn't like standing up for yourself by returning insults does much, is it? I guess you feel good that you insulted her back, but I'm sure she doesn't feel any smaller, and it doesn't clear out the space for any interesting discussion. Are some of the commentators so delicate that no returning an insult feels like "tak[ing] it up the ass, betas"? Aren't you guys tougher than that?

Bad Lieutenant said...

For me it isn't beta-ing, it's not homing in on chaff. How much of what Ritmo says needs to be answered? To the extent that I don't skip his posts nowadays, I skim them, looking for anything worth responding to.

If I find a nugget I may holla back, but otherwise what shall I tell him, that he is incoherent, unfair, tendentious, mendacious, self-contradictory, frothing with a rage hard to understand? It frankly hurts me to read his stuff, both because he writes to cause pain to others, and because it displays his own tortured soul.

He doesn't need me to tell him all that, he knows very well. If he wants to talk sense he knows where to find me. If I have something to say to him I may say it and he may listen. I wish he had more to say that interested and engaged me, I'm sure he could if he tried.

Birkel said...

Craig defends another Leftist. News at 11.

Birkel said...

Ossoff lost.

Bad Lieutenant said...

And exiled, yes, that's what she says. It really seems vain and superficial to me, but as I see my own parents' world getting smaller, who am I to deny her whatever satisfaction she may get? Perhaps all that's left to her is talking without listening. I don't have to hang her, I can just ignore her.

As I get older I prefer to be kinder where I can. Not easy to live up to.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Blogger Birkel said...
Ossoff lost.


And you see, that's it right there. 2 Little Words of fact beats a million posts of opinion speculation and falsehood.

Craig said...

"As I get older I prefer to be kinder where I can. Not easy to live up to." Agreed.

Fen said...

"Aren't you guys tougher than that?"

Chuck "the iceman" Liddel would probably let you poke at him for a few, but he would eventually get annoyed enough to throw a overhand right.

This strategy of asking everyone to ignore the troublemakers. Do you feel it's been effective? I never seen "ignore the trolls" work on a blog. It just enables them. And some of us are sick of the abuse.

It's also counter-intuitive. Be tough and ignore the bully because retaliation harshes your blog experience? How can you offer advice you don't take yourself. How about *you* be tough and ignore the counter-trolling?

It's illogical - "we want you to ignore the trolling because we can't ignore the counter-trolling"

Just ban them. Or give us a means to block them.

Lionheart said...

Best to read comments until they degenerate into pseudo-medical diagnostic taunts and talking point regurgitation. This avoids
strange hats and saves time.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Fen, if you're concerned that their tactic is effective, why don't you try it on them? Not to answer them, that's exactly what they want. Do your own trolling. Do your own one-way broadcasting of whatever sort of propaganda you feel would be agreeable to you and disagreeable to them. Be like traditionalguy. Try it and see how it works.

Ultimately Ann will follow the statistics. If enough people get turned off the board she'll change policies. If she wants to go from a Blog with 5,000 readers and 50 leftists, to a Blog with 50 leftists, she can do that.

Bad Lieutenant said...

I would say for your own sake and for the greater good, concentrate on making your own posts as valuable as you can.

Fen said...

Mary whatsherface is persona non-grata here and her sockpuppets get banned almost before the crowd can reply to her. So it's not unreasonable to ask why that practice can't be extended to Ritmo and Inga.

I would normally be more conforming to Althouse's request. But her own history of trolling her commenters or standing back and allowing one of her Favorites do it has left me cynical.

What's really going on here? Is the request to ignore all the personal attacks really a genuine one?

Dr Weevil said...

Since someone at 3:35pm alleged that Hinduism "along with Budhism [sic] are two of the most peaceful religons [sic] in the World", I thought I should remind everyone that Sri Lankan Tamils are mostly Hindus, and kept up one of the cruelest and bloodiest insurrections and terror campaigns in history from 1982 to 2009. It killed 80,000 to 100,000 people, thousands of them civilians blown up by bombs, including prime ministers of Sri Lanka and India. In fact, ten years ago, Muslims were not committing 98% of the terrorism in the world, as they are now, because the LTTE was doing its best to compete.
Fortunately, the Sri Lankan government demonstrated that it is possible to defeat terror campaigns by military force when they ignored international pressure and crushed the rebellion in 2009.
I wonder if serious websites with political interests should skip the "I'm not a robot" tests and add some kind of basic "I'm not a politico-historical illiterate" test before a comment is approved, to check if the user knows really basic historical facts that one should know before commenting on public affairs. Example: JFK was killed by a Republican: true or false? Hitler killed more people than Stalin: true of false? Hugo Chavez brought peace and prosperity to Venezuela: true or false?

Bad Lieutenant said...

I don't know where the line is but very few people have crossed it. Mary crossed it. A guy named Nichevo crossed it, no idea why. A guy named Cedarford crossed it apparently, or else he bowed out himself, because he was practically a literal Nazi and she tolerated him. Don't know too many others, maybe Trooper York? No idea why.

If it's any consolation, I guess you can do whatever you want and she won't do anything to you. She hasn't yet. The official line is something about ruining the blog. But I don't even think she means that because people as much as say they're trying to ruin the blog and she puts up with them.

I suspect she only blocks people who attack her personally or oppose her too strongly. Once written, who Meade said used to be Jay Retread, seems to be flirting with that line, I suppose he could be next - in fact I thought he got blocked and then wormed his way back in somehow.

So you can have your War but I don't think it benefits you. I'd rather hear constructively about your experiences and beliefs. You seem to have had an interesting life. Responding to crap is wasting ammo for you.

Achilles said...

Damn this thread went waaayyyy meta...

I like the new guy... Craig? 8 "substantive" posts. Ok... I will actually go look...

Achilles said...

This is all in order just posting for some brevity and clarification:

1. ""97 - 2!!! The war has begun between the legislative and executive branches. The Senate voted virtually unanimously to limit the President's power with regard to Russian sanctions."

And the war between the Judicial and the Executive is ongoing. This is what happens when you vote in a man who is wholly incompetant and corrupt."

2. "Yes, but do you? What branch of the government do you think put a hold on Trump's Travel Ban? I didn't say a word about the FBI, Mueller, Comey, etc."

3. "It appears that the House and the President are trying to weaken the bill. Surprise, surprise. Dirty from the top down. ..."

4. "Trump's team doesn't want an identical bill to pass the House. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signaled his opposition to the bill as written during a round of hearings on the State Department budget. The senators who wrote the bill designed it so that Trump would have far less authority than most presidents over the decision to impose or lift the sanctions.""

5. ""McCain was asked if he's seen the Senate version of AHCA. 'No,...but I'm sure the Russians have."

Just a joke I read folks, don't get mad."

6. "At least I didn't spell it incompecovfefe.☕️"

7. "Gee Birkel, why the heck do the people of Arizona and South Carolina keep voting for these two Soros' puppets?"

Francisco D said...
"I don't know about the rest of you, but I find Inga's comments increasingly and purposefully annoying and irrelevant. It is painful to look at her DNC-MSM talking points. The bullshit is really obvious.

I suspect that she has never had an original thought, based on critical thinking skills. That's common among Psych nurses. They could not manage the more challenging aspects of nursing school (AA or BA) so they go into a caretaker type of position."

Inga said:

"It was Gadfly, a conservative commenter, who brought up the issue. I commented on it. If you don't like it, too damn bad.

And Francisco, you asshole, I wasn't only a psych nurse for the entire 35 years of my career. I did many different types of nursing. Your increasingly odd and personal comments about me makes me wonder if you don't need some psychotherapy yourself, or a med adjustment. You really have a creep factor to your comments."

Inga said...
"Quaestor, your buddy Francisco has diagnosed via internet far more extensively than I ever have, he claims to be a psychologist. I called him on his medical ethics a long time ago. Now go chastise him."

"And I'm retired, so Questor you can kiss my ass."

"Hexiled,
Francisco is as nuts as you are. Any psychologist that comes online and focuses in on one person and continuously comments on that person's nursing profession in a such a disparaging way, has a mental health issue himself. I pity his patients and if I knew his name I would report him to the Board in a hot second. He better damn well hope I never find out his name."

Achilles said...
"Go easy on Inga people. She's just realizing that she has 7.5 years of the trump presidency left. It is tough when bubbles burst.

"Inga said...
I pity his patients and if I knew his name I would report him to the Board in a hot second. He better damn well hope I never find out his name."

This encapsulates what is wrong with these little tyrants.

I am 100% in support of gun control. Democrats shouldn't be allowed to have them."

Inga said...

"Achilles I wouldn't shoot him, unlike you, I'm not an extremist nut like you are. I'd report him to the Board for unethical behavior."

The descent was pretty rapid after that and everything went meta.

The difference between the two sides should be pretty obvious. Doxxing and trying to attack someones livelihood crosses some lines that calling someone a stupid bore does not cross.


Fen said...

We hope you enjoyed another episode of the Inga Show.

And thanks to our sponsors:
Narcissism
Masochism
And the letter G

Tune in next week, when Inga says....

"I've been a naughty girl and need to be punished. Do it! Or I shall taunt you a second time!"

Crazy Jane said...

Matthew Sablan said:

If only we had an industry dedicated to reporting these things.

Bingo. Trump is a complete mess in the style-points category, but so far there is no there there.

Brooks has awakened for a moment from his sojourn in pop-psychology land and has delivered about as much truth as New York Times readers can handle.

In fact, according to the comments following the piece, he's gone way, way too far.

The nation has descended into a pit of warring tribes. It is an unbecoming spectacled.

Kirk Parker said...


Bad Lt.,

I was just thinking of Cedarford... back in his era, we had a mostly-successful protocol that went like this: once per thread, someone needed to respond to C4's tripe, so it was clear to any newcomers that the silence in response to his provocations wasn't the silence of consent. BUT we were urged to be cautious about piling on, and for the most part this worked.

Maybe we could try that approach again now. It doesn't require a designated responder, just to mostly ignore the provocateurs and to refresh the page and scan for responses when you get to the point that you think a response is needed, to be sure someone else hasn't beat you to it. And then, apart from very unusual circumstances, let the first responder (heh) have their say, and consider that good enough, even if their response isn't nearly as good as the one you were planning.

Bad Lieutenant said...

The interesting thing about C4 was that if you hit him hard enough (or not so much hard as on point), he would actually shut up and go away (for that thread). The man knew when he had lost. Didn't admit it or anything, but went radio silent, which was just fine.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Also the longer you let them rant the more likely they will leave an opening.

I'm good with an approach of strategic patience. It's not like they're rational enough to be laying down tracks that would tar the board by association. Trump doesn't need to be defended from charges of short-fingerism or incest with Ivana. People can detect "when did you stop beating your wife" questions or statements. Honor or decency does not demand a response to their bushwah.

So if we could go absolutely dark on 'em, say for three days or a week, we could really shake their tree.